Making Babies the “Surest Way to Send Your Carbon Footprint Soaring”

baby_footYou might have guessed as much. But a new study from Oregon State University confirms that having a kid more than cancels out the energy-saving practices of North American parents.

The New York Times article on the study explains:

Take, for example, a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, and replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models. If she had two children, the researchers found, her carbon legacy would eventually rise to nearly 40 times what she had saved by those actions.

Obviously, the hypothetical above doesn’t take into account the presence of a second parent.

The carbon impact of pushing out a tyke or two varies depending on where you live.  In China, for example, the carbon footprint  of a woman who chooses to have a child will be seven times smaller. Again, this calculation doesn’t acknowledge an additional parent, but it does take into account that the child may be responsible for future generations of carbon-emitters:

… each child is, in turn, likely to have more children. And because the calculations derive from the fertility rate — the expected number of children per woman in various countries — the findings focus on women, although clearly men participate in the decision to have children.

O.S.U. professor of statistics Paul Murtaugh, feels that the knowledge derived from the study is indispensible to the international dialogue on climate change:

“In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime … Those are important issues and it’s essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources.”

So, lilies, has the reality of climate change affected your plans to start a family? I’m not sure if children are in my future, but as the effects of population growth on climate change started to become apparent, I began thinking that adoption might be the way to go.

Even if you do want spawn of your very own, the study suggests that having one less child than you planned is a big help to the environment. (That means two forms of protection, folks!) Here’s how that adds up:

Under current conditions in the U.S. … each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

Naturally, I’m pro-choice, and that goes both ways: The government shouldn’t put a cap on the size of your family. (In an ideal world, we’d be educated enough to do that ourselves.) The OSU researchers feel the same way:

… they are not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues, but say they simply want to make people aware of the environmental consequences of their reproductive choices.

“Many people are unaware of the power of exponential population growth,” Murtaugh said. “Future growth amplifies the consequences of people’s reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance.”



You Might Also Like ...

  • No Related Posts

105 thoughts on “Making Babies the “Surest Way to Send Your Carbon Footprint Soaring”

  1. Have kids just raise them to be eco-aware. Kids are such spoiled, wasteful little buggers. My friends kids have enough toys, video games and movies for an entire African village. I’m like why do you buy your kids so much shit? All it does is spoil them and teach them to be wasteful. If I have a child I will raise it to appreciate the planet not “things”. I will give my kid seeds to plant, a dog to raise and used books.

    • You have no idea how many parents say that, and I bet you’re underestimating just how much of their stuff comes from other people.

      • Too true! My kid has a gazillion toys and very few of them came from me and the majority are hand me downs. Practically everything I’ve bought for him is eco-friendly or at least recyclable; basically the only plastic toys I’ve purchased have been teething rings and bath toys because second hand skeeves me out in those cases. Most of his books are second hand or library too; I’d guess about 80% hand me down, 10% gifts, and 10% from me.

        It’s still possible to raise them well. We drive a hybrid or walk everywhere, we buy local food wherever possible, we’re all vegan, and the boy is very eco-aware. He knows all about recycling and he’s very crunchy; if we buy a snack while we’re out he’ll save any cardboard or plastic packaging to take home and recycle. He reminds me to take bags in to the store and if I get a bag there I get a major grilling.

      • Agreed!

        But the point is, no matter how crunchy your kid is, *not* having a kid makes less of an environmental impact than having one. You still have to feed, clothe, and bathe the kid, plus take it to the pediatrician, school, daycare, etc. Maybe you drive your kid around in a smart car and only buy vegan & organic, but it still took resources to produce those vegan-organic-local-fuel efficient products.

  2. I’m at a sort of crossroads with this topic.

    I originally didn’t want to have children at all, because I didn’t think I would be a good parent and because I didn’t want to add to the strain on the environment, and because, well, I just didn’t want them. The idea that the best way to fix the problem was TO have kids and raise them well wasn’t one that occurred to me on my own but it was pointed out frequently by other folks.

    In basic terms, it seems to make sense. A lot of folks with beliefs that aren’t very similar to mine in a lot of ways have as part of the lifestyle fashioned from those beliefs more than a few kids. If I don’t have kids, then those conflicting beliefs will be what is passed down (I’m sure some of those children would still end up eco-friendly, but overall, how many?) And I’m not saying that those folks don’t have the right to have kids, or that their lifestyles are wrong, but they’re definitely not what I believe in and they’re the kinds of folks I find myself arguing with over environmental protection issues. So who’s going to be there to argue with their kids, if not mine?

    I really have no idea whether or not I’m going to have children, but we plan on raising them as outdoorsy and ecologically friendly as we can.

      • Look, I know it isn’t going to fix all the damned problems, but I’d like to think that if I do decide to be a parent, I can at least pass on some values to my kids, particularly the ones important to me, and an understanding and respect for the environment is definitely one of those.

  3. The problem with this kind of report is that it encourages really obnoxious eco people to become even more obnoxious, to the point that if you’re not hand washing your hemp nappies in a solution of baking soda and freshly caught rainwater, then you’re an asshole. A friend was preggers and I sent her some tie-dyed onesies, really cute. She sent them back with a rude little note because they weren’t organic, soybased, metal rivted and on and on. Not once did her registry or anything specify that she only wanted eco stuff. I mean, her Graco car seat certainly isn’t certified organic nor is her four foot wide, four foot long industrial all terrain stroller. But apparently the baby clothes must be.

    I understand and agree with the eco movement but I hate the attitude that goes along with it, I really do. Can’t we recycle, eat organic, buy all-natural, and bike to work without emitting an obnoxious level of smug?

    • I don’t think that I, personally, am smug so much as frustrated and easily angered by folks who don’t seem to care at all about the environment because it’s a mentality that I myself cannot grasp. But, because I know eco folks (and vegetarian folks, and feminist folks) that are so loud, rude, obnoxious and vocal that nobody listens to them, which isn’t helping their social lives or their causes and I’d rather try to reach and relate to the folks that live differently than I do so that maybe we can actually make progress together but damn it’s hard for me to see the other side.

      • I, too, care about the environment and do what I can. I just can’t handle those who are obnox about it. And you’re right, they’re not the only ones: vegans who freak if cheese is in their sight, feminists who rail on you if you shave your legs, gun nuts who think you’re a terrorist if you don’t own guns, christians who flip out if you can’t quote the 10 commandments by heart. . .the world is full of people who are extreme and smug about being extreme.

        And I think that eco obnox behavior + parental obnox behavior = really unpleasant people. As you pointed out, Avery, making a whole lot of noise and insulting people doesn’t exactly help the cause.

    • AHAHAHA so true. It’s very easy to go overboard in either direction. I guess I just don’t get why kids need so many toys that the entire living room carpet is covered with them. The dog is happy with one ball so why can’t the kid downsize? Just sayin’

      • OK, let’s run an experiment. Go to one of these children you hate so much, tell them to throw away all their toys but one, and let us know how that works out.

      • Humans are just a wee bit smarter than dogs. Kids toys are educational and teach them different skills. If dogs needed to learn to read and count and recognize colors and write and everything else then they’d need a good deal more than a ball too.

        I’d like to know where you’re finding this dog that’s happy with one ball too. Every dog I know has several different toys and I’ve known dogs with almost as many toys as my kid and certainly more than he needs.

    • I agree, I’ve known far too many pro-environment people who hated children.

      Grow up, get over yourselves. Children are not your destruction, if you get your head screwed on straight and make peace with your own crap from childhood you will realize children are the best allies you can be making if what you indeed want to do is “save the planet”.

      Keep in mind that this ridiculous absolutism “children are bad for the environment” is as absurd as the claptrap you see spouted from other people, just packaged differently.

      • I’m not sure that it’s all that ridiculous – it’s that it’s going to be taken in a way that is ridiculous. The study is, hopefully, fairly scientific, and is simply stating the findings of the study as interpreted by the scientific folks that did the study. Children probably are bad for the environment, because a lot of the cultures and societies on earth, made up of individual people, do not treat the environment well. That doesn’t necessarily dictate that everyone should knock off the baby making, but it should point out something about how we live and how that affects the world we live in.

  4. the argument of raising kids to be “eco-conscious” is silly, and it won;t lessen the carbon footprint. it’s just an excuse people tell themselves when they want to have kids but want to rationalize it with the fleecy, birkenstock wearing, recycling set. personally i am sick of both groups. tired of dodging the double wide strollers parked everywhere, and whiney kids being taken to inappropriate places by parents either too cheap or too clueless to get a babysitter. case in point: recently went with friends to a dark, upscale pricey bar/lounge at 9:00pm and ordered $15 martinis. a couple came in with a toddler and sat in the booth behind us, and the kid begans whining and kicking. after about 15 minutes i informed the parents that the kid was kicking the back of my booth. their smug response was: “sorry – but he’s a toddler”. yeah, he’s a sleepy, bored toddler in a BAR at 9:00 at night! i don’t go to chucky cheese, please don’t take your kids to grown-up places . here’s a tip: the coloring book with crayons doesn’t always work; what would work is getting a babysitter or going somewhere more child appropriate. i am also sick of the canvas bag toting eco warriors who glare at me like i dropped a bomb on hiroshima if i forgot my canvas bags at the grocery store and ask for plastic ones (calm down, mr. crunch granola guy, i use them to pick up my dog’s poop at the dogpark)or when my starbuck coffee is too hot and i ask for it to be doublecupped and i get “the look” from the old hippie lady standing there with her ecofriendly thermos, like i’m ruining the planet. sorry for the rant, but geez, when did everything become a contest as to who could be the most self- righteous and boring?

  5. me too. obviously people are going to continue to procreate, regardless of whatever pressure eco groups try to use, but the whole “my child will make the world a better place” argument is kind of silly and unrealistic. maybe more people should adopt children.

    • I think that hoping that your children will make the world a better place is a pretty good hope, and that trying to make the world a better place for your children is pretty damn noble. You aren’t going to fix everything, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try.

        • If you raise them to be good people? I suppose what makes them good people will depend on your priorities. I am environmentally aware because my parents were, and I hope to pass that on to my children, should they ever exist, as well.

        • but we aren’t talking about good people vs. bad people – obiously most people have children and try to raise them to be good people, and i don’t think having chcildren makes one a bad person. we are talking about the very real fact that the world is overcrowded,polluted, our natural resources are dwindling and many economists -not environmentalists, but economists- are predicting within 50 years the next resource we will be going to war over will not be oil, it will be access to clean water. i’m uncertain how contributing to the overcrowding will help the environment, no matter how the kids are raised.

        • I think the “how the kids are raised” mostly comes in when the fact is accepted that even if we are running out of resources, people are going to still have children. So having children that you were maybe or probably have anyway and raising them to be environmentally conscious would hopefully help find solutions to our ecological problems. Yes, having more people (or at least people to take over our places when we the parents are gone) means use of more resources, but I think our bigger problem is how those resources are used, considering the United States has a smaller population but uses more of the world’s resources than the underdeveloped countries. Of course, we use some of those resources for better health care, etc. but we also waste a lot, as a culture. Teaching the future not to make our mistakes would, in theory and in hope, lessen the unnecessary resource use, etc. I mean, I realise this is a totally idealized argument, but again I’m trying to work with the idea that folks are going to have kids anyway, possibly including me. And really, I’m not going to be around to see it if the world falls apart. But I feel like I should do what I can to see that it lasts a little longer. I don’t know. Also, spelling errors forgiven – an edit button would be lovely, wouldn’t it?

  6. Oh my goodness–I am SUCH a horrible person because I’m planning on having children. God, I don’t even deserve to live. Somebody lock me up right now. I must be stopped! The environment is at stake! Oh the humanity!

    • I don’t think that’s what anyone is saying, although this study on the heels of last week’s government report that raising a kid to 17 costs approx 250,000$ makes you wonder what the agenda is.

        • Oh, I don’t know if there’s an agenda but a friend of mine was in a real snit because this OSU study comes out saying kids = huge carbon footprint and last week the gov’t said raising a kid to 17 = a quarter of a million dollars. In her mind, it’s an anti-child agenda. By whom? I have no idea. To what end? Again, no clue. But she and her friends think it’s very real.

        • I think they are A) people who bristle when something contradicts their perfect world view and B) staunch believers that since they had kids, everyone has to have kids.

          She is the kind that will bitch for an hour about how hard her life is and then launch into “you should have kids, you won’t know what it means to be alive until you do.”

        • Haha! I bitch about how hard my son is, but I follow it up with, “Always use birth control!” Seriously. I do.

          I don’t think anybody should have a child unless they go into it with their eyes wide open.
          A general plan about how you’re going to turn the thing into a responsible, functioning member of society in 18 short years is a pretty good idea too.
          Even more important is an actual desire to have children. Kids can tell if you never really wanted them.

    • Well, technically, you kind of ARE a horrible person if know something will hurt others in the future,( like reproducing) and you do it anyway.

      • Oh, please. What bullshit.

        Just about every single action a person can take (or NOT take) will probably end up hurting someone, somewhere, at some point in the future.

        If I buy a pair of jeans, I’m supporting child labor. If I eat a cheeseburger, I’m supporting the mistreatment of animals. If I give pocket change to a homeless man, I’m contributing to his “laziness”. If I buy tropical fruit at the store, I’m hurting local farmers. And now, apparently, if I have the family that I’ve been looking forward to since forever, I’m going to cause the environmental apocalypse.

        Guess what? I’m going to have my babies, damn it. Yes, notice the plural there (I’m thinking at least two). There is nothing wrong with having kids. If you’re so concerned, plant a bunch of trees.

        For the record, I’m not anti-eco-friendly or anything. Just comments like the above really piss me off.

        • So since some things you do have negative consequences why just fuck it all to hell and do whatever you want, every one else be damned? Yep, that totally makes you a good person.Oh, and having kids out of spite? Very mature, you should definitely be passing on those genes and morals. ( eye roll.)

        • Believe me, I can be pretty damn spiteful when I want to be–BUT, as it happens, I’m having kids for entirely different reasons.

          If you’re so concerned, here’s what we’ll do. YOU (and perhaps you can rally some like-minded friends) can refuse to have children. I will have children. Therefore your lack of children will balance out the existence of my children.

          I will certainly be able to sleep at night. Let’s hope you can too.

        • The only thing your poor understanding of mathematics/the global population crisis pales in comparison to is your grasp of social responsibility, a.k.a. tryin’ to be less of an asshole. But, yes, I will sleep like the baby I hope you never have because you’ll probably just turn out to be sterile.

        • Well there are some people who will make perfectly good parents and some people who really shouldn’t reproduce. I’d say we’re nicely in balance here. The sane people have babies, the bitter and spiteful idiots don’t. It’s all good.

        • Aww, look at you try to “zing” me with a comeback.I guess your spelling is just something else you want to grace future generations with?

        • And that’s what I meant in my post, that it’s all in the way that things are approached. It makes a huge difference on what people are willing to hear, what they’re willing to admit and think about, and why attacking statements (even if on some level, in some way, they’re true, or at least obviously folks making them think they are) don’t do anybody any good.

          I absolutely believe you have the right to have your family, if that’s something that’s that important to you. And…well, I will plant a bunch of trees. And yes, a bunch of things people do hurt, either each other, others, plants, animals, whatever. Whomever. And that’s why I hope that maybe one or more of your kids, at some point, will think about what it means to live here and plant some trees, too. I don’t mean to get philosophical, and I am absolutely not presuming to tell you how to raise your child, but it’d be nice if there were trees for both our grandkids to see and play in. That’s all.

  7. Why does everyone feel the need to have kids?And I don’t buy for a second that it’s just because they love children or else there wouldn’t be so many unwanted children in the world rotting in orphanages and foster care. To me it just reeks of the worst kind of narcissism.

    • I don’t want kids and I don’t particularly like them, but I don’t think that’s a fair statement at all.

      There is on some level a biological drive to have children in order for the species to survive. And we are wired, I think, to want our own genetics passed down. I don’t think it’s narcissism at all.

      And you’re right about unwanted and abandoned orphans and all that, but to just blanket all breeders as narcissists is inflammatory and extremely unkind.

      • The is a biological imperative for people to cheat on their spouses too, but cheating is still generally reviled.If we used biology as a cop out for everything we would still be in the stone age. I’m not trying to call for a total hiatus on reproduction, I want civilization to carry on ( at least until I die), but it just seems like so many people have children for the worst reasons,i.e: they’re bored, they want unconditional love, they want to live vicariously through someone, or they just turned 30. The human overpopulation is turning out to be exactly like the pet overpopulation crisis, 75% ignorance, 25% selfishness.

        • I think you’re on the right path there, comparing our biology and intellect. What I mean by that is that most animals are driven to breed. We’re still animals, so that drive is probably still there. However, we can also think about and rationalize that drive and then decide whether or not to give in to it (for whatever reason) but there are also other issues, sociological, economical, and otherwise that come up and some of those aren’t so pretty or intelligent.

    • Everybody doesn’t feel the need to have children.
      Some of us just get pregnant on accident and don’t want to have abortions and can afford to raise kids.
      Some people make a decision to have children because they know they’ll be good parents and they know children will make them as happy as they’ll make their children.
      Some people can’t afford to adopt. A lot of people are not equipped to handle the challenges that come along with adopting a child who’s already had such a turbulent childhood that they’ve been removed from their natural parents’ care.

      As far as selfish behavior goes, people raising decent families is pretty far down on the list of “hurtful to society.”

      As far as your statement that there’s a biological imperative to cheat, that’s not actually true. There is a very small segment of the population that actually feels an imperative to cheat and for whom monogamy is a very difficult task. Besides that, cheating is not typically as rewarding as having a happy family.
      So to compare the very basic, very powerful urge to procreate with the urge to cheat on a spouse is off base.

      I know people don’t like to assign behavior to biological responses, but unfortunately, we’re humans. And letting biology compel our behavior would not have us stuck in the Stone Age. It’s only been quite recently (on an evolutionary scale) that people have made conscious decisions not to act according to their biological impulses.
      It was way, way after the Stone Age.

      • I think you’re right in that people raising decent families is not hurtful to society. But going back to the study, we’re talking less about society itself and more about the environment. It’s very easy in our culture to overlook the basic facts of where our food, furniture, etc. comes from – even if we know it intellectual, I think that’s different from knowing it viscerally, so that it really makes an impact on us. And so raising a family that is polite, kind, and active but drinks bottled water and uses pesticides is still going to hurt that environment. I think really it’s about priorities and whether we know, care, and can afford enough to make the environment a family priority.

  8. i truly have never felt the need to procreate, ever. so i have done the right thing for myself and not reproduced (i was on the pill for years and mr. snap recently had a vasectomy) but i am curious for those who have kids or are planning to: would adoption not quench the need to procreate? is it more about being a parent and creating a family or is it more about some kind of biological urge to spread your own genes? not trying to start a fight with everyone taking sides (please don’t), i really want to know. wouldn’t loving an adopted child suffice?

    • I never wanted children either, or at least that was what I thought. I got pregnant at 24 while on the pill and it was the biggest shock of my life. I literally cried for hours when I found out. Even though I am extremely pro choice, I couldn’t bring myself to have an abortion. Every time I look at my daughter I can’t believe that I even thought about terminating the pregnancy. I have the purest love for her and God forbid should anyone ever try to hurt her– I would kill for her safety.

      I actually want another child now. I really, really want another child. It is almost a pulling, tugging feeling that I feel deep down to my core. My first choice is to have another bio child, but if that fails I will definitely adopt. If I adopt I know I would love that child just as much as my bio child. But, it will be another 2 – 3 years before I try for a bio child…

  9. How can you all talk about carbon footprints? That picture is horrifying! She’s going to eat that poor defenseless baby’s foot!

  10. Sorry, just have to say this: if you are a woman reading this and you want a big family, do not let people here dissuade you. Some of us are not meant to have big families, I am one of them. I have one child I love very much, and that’s about as much as I can handle. You have 3 on my behalf because if that is what you really would love to do, chances are you are going to bring such beauty to it that you will do a far better job with your 3, than if I had 2 and you had 2.

    I’m not saying I’m a bad mom–I’m not. I am a fabulous mom to a wonderful one child. And I’ve seen fabulous moms to upwards of 3 children, and I love watching them parent, and their children know they are loved.

    The world doesn’t need more women second guessing their own desires while self-centered and selfish absolutists are going to tell you why following your own peace loving heart is bad. If you’ve got the heart and hips of a woman wanting a large brood, do it! And tell all the sassy envinonrmentalists to shut their whiney traps and come “infect” your children with their love of the planet.

    Because that’s really where hope resides–in our future. Not in telling a pro-environment mama who secretely craves a big family that she is bad for doing so. That’s no different from all the religious people telling Mormon women they should have more babies so their husband can get to a better place in Heaven, regardless of what that woman really wants to do.

      • I’m not earnest, I’m old enough to know better, and definitely old enough to tell you to take the garbage out.

        Your commentary here is nothing new, you’re not even a stunning troll, just a bit below average really. Feel free to amaze me with your wide array of internet memes.

        /yawn

        • I didn’t read a word of your little “rebuttal” because I’m still laughing my ass off ,13 or so hours later, over “If you’ve got the heart and hips of a woman…”. Comedy gold! How do you even come up with this stuff; do you riffle through Reba McEntire’s trash?

        • Oh, so you’re still in high school d? Now it all makes sense. Smoking weed while trolling on mommy’s puter. Poor dear, you must have no parental supervision at all.

        • Quite. Nobody gives a crap about SAT scores once they have their college acceptance letter. Either you’re a teenager or you’re just one of those rare and very sad adults who has a crap job but like to boast about their usually very mediocre scores on the SAT because that somehow makes them look better.

        • It’s ok, Frondi. If only you had gone to highschool, you might have been able to not only take the SATs, but also learn to spell ” computer”.

        • 1. I mentioned it once in a discussion about IQ where it was relevant and I was just using myself as an example. SAT scores are totally irrelevant to this discussion
          2. I’m not unemployed. I’m a mom and a housewife. Just because I don’t get a pay check doesn’t mean it’s not a career.
          3. When you randomly insult everyone nobody is the least bit offended because we all know it’s not personal, you’re just a sad and bitter individual.

  11. Omg. Obviously the only solution to saving the environment is to just end the entire human population. Most annoying article I’ve ever read. I’m going to have children and their going to be little carbon machines. Whatever.

    • And that is the standpoint that I just do not understand. Don’t you want your children to be able to enjoy a summer picnic out by a lake that isn’t covered in trash, under skies that aren’t clouded with smog? If you really want children, why wouldn’t you want to make the world a good place for them, as much as you are able to?

  12. These studies are extremely flawed, however. By this logic Americans should stop having so many kids because our carbon footprints are enormous but in developing or undeveloped countries, they should be allowed to have as many children as they want because their carbon footprints are tiny. And that’s fine until you think about the conditions the children are being born into and raised into. Poverty, hunger, war, rape, disease, no education. . .is that any better for the world just because they aren’t driving cars or living in households full of plastics?

  13. I read that cows greatly increase greenhouse gasses so maybe we should have kids and stop eating cows. Apparently cows fart a lot.

        • True. In that case I say we keep the cows because they’re delish and then we can keep the men because they’re fun to have around. And we get rid of all SUV’s and the elderly instead.

  14. actually cows are one of the biggest causes of topsoil erosion due to overgrazing, as well as the methane problem, not to mention slaughterhouse runoff. but that’s a whole other issue….

  15. This whole thread has gone haywire.

    Here is a very sensible suggestion:
    If you are truly so concerned about people having babies and destroying the environment, you feel that having children is wrong, the only responsible thing to do is commit suicide. That’s right. Suicide. You will immediately become an asset to the environment by removing any chance of creating a drain on the environment, and if you see to it that you are buried sans casket – you’ll even help it!

    I can’t believe some of the ridiculous shit I have read here.

      • No, D.

        Try to wrap your wee mind around this decidedly adult concept, okay?
        Stay with me, now. Or try.

        The comment I made was sarcasm. I think suicide is a horrible thing. But, some of the comments made here needed to be put into perspective.

        How the Hell can anyone make blanket statements about people not procreating in order to save the planet? If you state this, if you sincerely believe this – then you shouldn’t be here. If you are that concerned, you should do whatever you can, not only by not having children yourself – but by removing yourself from the equation. You are leaving a “carbon footprint” (this phrase is actually very stupid – I hate buzzwords) and if you are that sincere, you should do everything possible to not be part of the problem.

        And that idea is as ridiculous as the idea that no one should have children.

        Now, go clean your room.

  16. lol, whatever fortunately all of you enviromentalist/feminists will be dead in 80 years and only people who had babies will be left and they wont give a shit about the environment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>